Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Burson

Summary

The Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Girard Municipal Court's order compelling arbitration and staying the case in a dispute arising from a vehicle retail installment contract. The court held that Credit Acceptance Corporation did not waive arbitration by filing the complaint because the arbitration clause expressly permitted arbitration before or after a lawsuit was filed, and the company acted promptly without extensive litigation. The court also held that the contract preserved the seller's arbitration rights and covered the seller's employees and other third-party defendants.

Holdings

1. Credit Acceptance did not waive its contractual right to compel arbitration. Where an arbitration clause expressly permits either party to demand arbitration before or after a lawsuit is filed, filing the complaint alone is not conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; waiver requires additional conduct that is completely inconsistent with that right, and Credit Acceptance acted promptly without engaging in extensive litigation or discovery.
2. Valley Auto Finance retained a right to compel arbitration, and Valley Auto and its employees remained parties covered by the arbitration clause. The contract's language expressly included both the seller and the seller's assignee, as well as their employees, within the definition of the parties entitled to invoke arbitration.
3. The trial court satisfied R.C. 2711.03 by vacating its initial order, considering the Bursons' memorandum in opposition, and then ruling on the motion. The statute does not require an oral or evidentiary hearing absent a proper request.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Credit Acceptance waived its contractual right to compel arbitration by filing the collection lawsuit and participating in the early stages of the litigation.
2. Whether Valley Auto Finance and its employees remained subject to the arbitration agreement, despite Valley Auto's assignment of its rights under the retail installment contract to Credit Acceptance.
3. Whether the trial court violated R.C. 2711.03 by granting the motion to compel arbitration without holding an oral or evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed